Talk:List of New York City Subway terminals

V service time
My reasoning for not including "all except nights and weekends" after specifying the V train is this: By saying something like, "South terminal for V all but nights and weekends," one implies that the V has a different terminal during nights and on weekends; of course, this is not true&mdash;the V doesn't run at all during nights and weekends. Using "South terminal for V" says, "This is the south terminal for the V train at all times when it runs." The times when it does run can be obtained by clicking the link to the V article. &mdash; Larry V (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Check marks
Can we come up with a different method for denoting if the station is listed? The current method is bad for WP:ACCESSIBILITY since it cannot be easily parsed by the visually impaired. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking the station layouts
I just removed the entire listing of station layouts. This was for two reasons. First, there were so many templates from so many terminals that the transclusion limit got reached. Funnily enough, that section itself is so large that it breaks the transclusion limit (I was planning on forking it but clearly that won't even work). While I was mulling over how best to split the layouts into more manageable pieces, I came across the second reason. I'm not entirely sure it's necessary for every terminal of the A Division and the B Division to have layouts. Not only are we excluding every non-terminal, but the terminal layouts are already found on the terminal articles themselves (with very small exception). I'm all for having minor facts found in multiple places to avoid people searching for it, but station layouts are pretty big and easy to see on the individual articles.

Anywho, that's my thoughts. I honestly don't think they should be added back (or forked) unless we create every NYC Subway station layout, or find a better way to display these terminals without going over the transclusion count. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 04:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 03:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it might have worked if you replaced all the remaining BS-maps, but it's probably better just to either keep the layouts in the station articles or link to the layout templates in the table. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Also, each terminal's article already has a BS-map of the track layout. maybe we want to keep the current version for the time being. Apparently, adding all the switches and points to the diagrams, causes the article to reach the transclusion limit. epicgenius - (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It may have to do with the fact that I added the BStext implementation to Module:Routemap primarily for these diagrams, and given the amount of marginally useful bells and whistles that are in there (which aren't normally loaded for the usual icon images), it could have caused a lot of slowdown. I'm not sure, really (looking at the page source, some of it is also from rail-interchange and the BS-maps are actually slightly more resource-intensive than the Routemaps). Maybe if the page used mostly your diagrams instead it might have helped? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * I don't know. We should give these a try, probably. epicgenius - (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't do any editing but I've been researching these terminals for the past few days and this page has been very helpful. I see why you removed those diagrams but I'm wondering if you could somehow incorporate the quick written summaries of the station layouts? I found it useful for finding information quickly. Maybe along with a link to the diagram?Subsubway (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (Pinging ) Can we re-add the SL-maps of the station layouts? It complements the explanation in the lead, as to what type of terminal the station is. epicgenius - (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm all right with that. It could probably use a bit of clarification (some of the descriptions make little to no sense), but on the whole it's good. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then. I think I will clear up any confusion with these layouts in the coming days. epicgenius - (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * to be clear you're readding the Routemaps, right? We did have a rather long discussion which resulted in the deletion of the SL templates Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * I am re-adding the text notes with more clarifications. The routemaps were too bulky. epicgenius - (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay then, never mind. (Maybe link to the diagrams in the large tables though.) Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * All right, maybe I'll link to all of the diagrams within the table. epicgenius - (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Um... ? The wikilinks in the table link almost directly to the diagrams that are in the articles (especially the ones that are subsections in an article about the line). Not sure an extra link is necessary. Primefac (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess we won't be needing these extra links after all. I thought we were going to have many situations like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway) where the diagram was going to be halfway down the very long article. epicgenius - (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If we do have any situations like that, we just modify the link in the table to point to (for example) Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway). There aren't many to fix, though, based on what I remember from the second table. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so I guess we can do that. It's getting late where I live, so I guess I'll do it tomorrow. Or technically, later today. epicgenius - (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)